Friday, October 27, 2006

Foreign War + Domestic Terror = Martial Law

Daniel Ellsberg (among others) has been talking for quite some time about a possibility which I have been thinking about but not mentioning. Why not? I didn't want to be alarmist; I hoped Ellsberg was wrong, and I didn't want to give the enemy any good ideas.

But it appears more and more likely that Ellsberg may be right, and the pieces of which he spoke keep falling into place. So we may as well talk about it; indeed, my Honesty in Blogging clause demands that we do so.

Problem or Solution?

Here's the problem, (or maybe, depending on your point of view, the solution):

Free Elections = Gitmo | The Hague | Nooses


Foreign War + Domestic Terror = Martial Law


Martial Law > Free Elections

Free Elections means Gitmo or The Hague or Nooses

If we had free and fair elections -- if everybody were entitled to vote, and if all the votes were counted properly, and if we had anybody to vote for -- most of the current administration, including all the top figures, and many of their friends and business associates would be in danger of arrest, trial, incarceration and perhaps even execution on charges pertaining to multiple war crimes and crimes against humanity, but only if they were unlucky enough not to be hanged for treason first.

Foreign War plus Domestic Terror makes Martial Law

However, if they could stir up another foreign war -- perhaps a nuclear war -- and if there were a big terrorist attack at home -- something that made 9/11 look like a picnic in the park -- the combination of wartime hysteria and terror-generated fear would give them a plausible pretext for the declaration of martial law.

Martial Law trumps Free Elections

Once martial law were declared, elections would be a formality. In a society where anyone who opposes the government goes to a prison camp, who would vote against the rulers? And what if they did? Nobody would be making sure the votes were counted properly anyway.

Foreign War

The foreign war could be global but it could also start small(er); for example it could "simply" be against Iran and that could start any day now.

American naval maneuvering continues apace and Ellsberg once again sees the signs of an upcoming fabricated "incident" which would provide a pretext for attack, probably nuclear as well as conventional.

Or at least that was the standard analysis until North Korea did or did not conduct a nuclear test and/or did or did not apologize for it and/or did or did not threaten to conduct further nuclear and/or conventional testing and/or nuclear and/or conventional attacks on South Korea in the near and/or subsequent future.

So ... What shall it be? Iran? North Korea? Both? Who knows? I can't be sure, can you? But there is no doubt that the media have been working hard to paint both Iran and North Korea as somehow deserving an attack from America.

Domestic Terror

The terror attack at home would certainly be synthetic, and could come anywhere, anytime, as our so-called protectors relentlessly remind us. Personally I've been having a bad feeling about Chicago, ever since the '68 convention to tell you the truth, and I wouldn't want to live within 5,000 miles of the Windy City anytime soon.

Martial Law

Countless reports like this one have been mostly ignored, while greater attention has been paid to more visible abuses, such as the so-called USA PATRIOT act(s) and the more recent so-called "Anti-Terror" legislation.

Now the Insurrection Act has been rewritten and the Posse Commitatus Act has been gutted, removing the constraint against using American military forces for domestic purposes and making it easier than ever for the so-called president to declare martial law.


Less than two weeks before the midterm elections, where do we stand? The GOP money and their increasingly transparent propaganda are flying fast and furious and can only get worse in the next week or so. Will this make the elections close enough to steal? It's anyone's guess.

The voting machines are in place for some seriously off-kilter results but whether they can steal enough votes in enough places -- against increasingly mobilized opposition -- is another guess. This guess is a tough one -- especially with hard-core Republican support for the president seemingly evaporating.

Therefore, all available distractions will be in play, but if the evil one doesn't like his chances, he always has this other option.

The problem (for us) and the solution (for him) lie in the fact that -- checks and balances notwithstanding -- the Constitution of the United States is at this point only an old piece of paper, most of the best parts of which have been shredded already.